world_war_2wikiaorg-20200214-history
World War II Wiki:Reliable sources
::For discussing the reliability of a particular source or sources, please click here to be transferred to the reliable sources forum Reliable sources are necessary for assuring the accuracy of information cited in articles, and to improve the reputability of the wiki encyclopedia. Sources used in articles must be reliable. They must meet certain requirements of reliability to be used, especially depending on whether the subject matter is disputed, and may be debunked as unreliable if proven by other editors in discussions regarding reliable sources. Guide to estimating the reliability of particular sources Some sources can fairly easily be estimated at being more reliable than others. For example, book sources are generally more reliable than web sources. Web sources Web sources should generally not be considered reliable except for basic facts and as augmentative sources for providing support to claims cited by print sources. There are some exceptions, such as if a print source is available online, in which case it should be treated as a print source. Journal articles in online databases are common examples. Although, sometimes websites can supply most of the information for an article, but it is better if a print source is at least used. To verify web source information, try to cross reference it with other web sources and print sources, especially if the website does not look legitimate. Only .gov and .edu domain names should be considered as in indication of reliability, as they are not available for public registration. However, there are still considerations to keep in mind regarding their reliability. Considerations- *.com domain names are very popular, and may be used by legitimate websites. *.org domain names can be registered by anyone, and are not an indication of reliability. *Most Nazi websites and the like have .org domain names in order to make their claims seem legitimate. *People with mainstream political goals may also use .org domain names for their websites to try to push a particular point of view. *Some .edu websites may post student work to create an encyclopedia on their website, and such work might easily contain errors. *News sources should not be considered reliable, since they will very likely be dealing with something related to WWII, and only include historical information as background. Such historical information would not be the focus, and could very easily contain errors, since the main concern of the news source would be on recording the current event. Automatically unreliable sources: *WikIpedia- You can use Wikipedia's sources, but not Wikipedia itself, as long as you verify the claims from the sources themselves. *World War II Wiki articles- this encyclopedia cannot be a source for itself. *Wikis- when writing a wiki, people make mistakes easily, and there is a serious risk of vandalism and POV information. *Forums- even if someone gives citations in a post, you should verify the information from those sources. The person may simply be fabricating the claims, and forums are not viewed as reliable by the historical community. Print sources Print sources are generally far more reliable than web sources. However, the rise in printing and distribution companies for small publishers is closing this reliability gap. Questions, Comments, Suggestions? See this page's talk page! Category:Policies